The tomb of St Paul in Rome
Posted on 06/29/2009 6:42:19 AM PDT by NYer
Pope Benedict XVI said last night that bone fragments found inside the tomb of St Paul in Rome had been carbon dated for the first time, "confirming the unanimous and uncontested tradition that they are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul".
He said that archaeologists had inserted a probe into the white marble sarcophagus under the Basilica of St Paul's Outside the Walls which has been revered for centuries as the tomb of St Paul.
The pontiff said: "Small fragments of bone were carbon dated by experts who knew nothing about their provenance and results showed they were from someone who lived between the 1st and 2nd century. This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that these are the mortal remains of Paul the Apostle."
The Pope, who said the discovery "fills our souls with great emotion", made the unexpected announcement during Vespers at St Paul's Basilica last night, marking the end of the Pauline year held in honour of the apostle. He said that as well as bone fragments, archaeologists had found grains of red incense, a piece of purple linen with gold sequins and a blue fabric with linen filaments in the tomb.
Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, the archpriest of St Paul's, said that he had known for more than a year that the tests had shown that the bones were those of a man of the 1st century, but had been sworn to secrecy because it had been "up to the Holy Father to make this public". He said this was why the Vatican press office had denied last week that the bones had been identified. "Only the Pope can make such an important and solemn announcement," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Why wouldn’t they be St Paul’s? Who else would be buried
under St Paul’s Basilica? Gen Grant?
At the beginning of the 4th century, with the end of the persecutions and the promulgation of the Edicts of Tolerance in favour of Christianity, Emperor Constantine ordered the excavation of the cella memoriae, the place where Christians venerated the memory of Saint Paul the Apostle, beheaded under Nero around 65-67 A.D. Above his grave, located along the Ostiense Way, about two kilometers outside the Aurelian Walls surrounding Rome, Constantine built a Basilica which was consecrated by Pope Sylvester in 324.
Of course the bones found in St. Paul’s tomb were St. Paul’s. If the bones hadn’t been those of St. Paul, it wouldn’t really have been St. Paul’s tomb, would it?
Please. We all know from the Crevo threads that carbon dating isn’t reliable. 8^)
Neat.
Carbon dating doesn’t reveal DNA. The Pope’s reliance
on this as if it proves these are the Apostle Paul’s remains
is insufficient. The best you can say is that it supports
the belief that these are the Apostle Paul’s remains.
Not quite infallible ...
This ha snothing to do with infallibility in any case.
I found the claims odd as well. Since when are Carbon tests used to confirm identity?
A fantastic opportunity for DNA sequencing. I hope they do it!
C14 alone will only say that the remains came from a particular time period.
Sequencing of “known” remains though could reveal a lot about origins and relationships.
Traditions of men
I suspect Paul would be wondering why we’re bothering to honor or venerate him. His work in Christ as the evangelist and his letters to the church are what are important, not the bones he happened to use up while in Christ’s service.
"Small fragments of bone were carbon dated by experts who knew nothing about their provenance and results showed they were from someone who lived between the 1st and 2nd century. This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that these are the mortal remains of Paul the Apostle."
Interesting if true, but it seems a bit of a jump from "someone who lived between the 1st and 2nd century" to "this is Paul".
Carbon dating doesn’t reveal DNA.
Not having a sample of Paul's DNA, a DNA sample would tells us what? Male. Middle eastern maybe, and not much more than that.
Does that basilica exist today? Is it St. Paul-Outside-the-Wall? With the chains? That was so moving.
The pope’s statement emphasized that the primary credibility rests on the pedigree of the veneration of the tomb. This is the basic way that all relics are authenticated. The carbon-14 dating is merely a corroboration. Had the C-14 dating given a date hundreds of years earlier or hundreds later it would have cast doubt on authenticity. But the C-14 dating of 1st-2nd century is at best mildly corroborative.
That’s what the pope said. What the media are making of this is something else—they accent the C-14 dating. If I were the pope, I’d have not even made this public. It’s asking for misinterpretation. But then, I’m not the pope.
DNA testing is impossible. You can’t do DNA testing unless you have authenticated descendents identified. In the case of St. Paul that’s absolutely impossible. He was unmarried and we know nothing, nada about his blood relatives.
So just put the DNA idea out of your mind. It’s totally irrelevant.
That this place as been venerated as the tomb of St. Paul from a time in which living memory of his execution still persisted (3 or so generations) is the main source of credence that the bones are St. Paul’s. The same applies to St. Peter’s bones under the altar at St. Peter’s Basilica—we have solid evidence that it was venerated as the site of his burial at least within 3 generations of his death, which suggests (but does not absolutely prove) unbroken veneration.
Yes .. it is still there and a popular destination of pilgrims to Rome.
With the chains?
The chain that, according to the most ancient tradition, attached the Apostle Paul to the Roman soldier assigned to guard him while in prison in Rome, is the most precious among the relics and objects on display in this chapel. Already in the 5th century, Pope Leo the Great made mention of it.
I should add that pedigree of veneration is EXACTLY the same way that any historical artifact is verified. How do we know that the bed in which Abraham Lincoln died is identical with the one housed at the Chicago Historical Society? By checking as best one can the records of its transfer from the rooming house to whatever waystations it has occupied.
How do I know that that suit of armor supposedly worn by Edward the Black Prince and on display in Canterbury Cathedral’s museum is authentic? By tracing the pedigree of who owned it when and where. How do I know that the Oval Office desk made from timbers of HMS Victory is authentic (and now turfed out by Zero)? By tracing the records of its manufacture and transfer to Washington. How do I know that the ship at Portsmouth said to be HMS Victory is authentic? By tracing the records in the Admiralty archives. Yes, one can do other sorts of forensic investigations and sometimes forensic investigations rule out claims of authenticity. But they rarely by themselves prove beyond any doubt the authenticity of the artifact. An unbroken pedigree of people/documents saying, “this object is X” is the most credible authentication for artifacts found in museums around the world.
All such authentications are fallible. History is not an exact science. But then neither is physics or chemistry. Our major scientific theories are explanatory models, the best explanations we can come up with for the piles of data collected. From time to time the explanatory models get majorly revised or even overturned. The same can happen with artifacts: evidence can emerge that de-authenticates, evidence can emerge that corroborates but proof is always inexact.
One has to exercise faith (credit, belief). How do I know that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born US citizen? By examining the pedigree of custody of his birth certificate. Since that has not yet been done, ergo, I don’t believe his claim that he is. But evidence corroborating his claim could turn up. Then again, it might not. :-)
Crazy and irresponsible. Have these tests been evaluated by an independent party? And even so, how can that prove the bones belong to Paul?
Like carbon dating, this can not be conclusively used to confirm identity. Rather it can be used to exclude other possible identities. In the case reported here for instance, carbon dating excludes the possibility that the individual buried in the tomb reported to be St. Paul's dates from a later time period. This therefore, is consistent with the hypothesis that the body is that of St. Paul but does not definitively prove it.
Definitive proof is a far more rigorous and difficult proposition. It would require a knowledge of St. Paul's family tree and extant DNA samples from known relatives. Alternatively, forensic evidence in the remains for some pathology from which St.Paul was known to suffer, would also be convincing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.